| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER? |
| 2005-12-06 |
| Until they invent the time machine and make Jimmy Carter disappear, the answer is...NO. PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..." They should've asked him to rate the horniest presidents. But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out. "No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with." Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times. But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual. GAY!? Oh, he just moved way, WAY up on the list! Is it me or was every famous person gay? Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property. He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents. I can't mention any names, of course. Wouldn't want them rounded up by the Black Helicopter Squadron and taken to "the camps". You'll just have to take my word for it. There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan. 50 out of 415? Wow, that's like...12%!!! So, doing liberal math, that makes Bush the Worst President EVER! This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record: He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process; Unwinnable? We shall see.I think you're wrong. He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich; "Reduced taxation of the rich"? I'm rich? WOW! I'M RICH!!! He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state; I missed that. When did that happen? Was I on vacation? He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign; Really? Proof please? Evidence? Instances? He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida); Blown up levees and hunter killer dolphins. He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity; Last I heard there's more jobs in this country then in any time in history He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress; HE HASN'T CURED AIDS YET!!! JAMES BUCHANAN WOULD BE SO PISSED!!! He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime. We're Halliburton...and we know where you live... Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney. You left out Evil Genius Karl Rove. Karl hates when you do that! |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #16 A.C. LOL! Don't forget he can shoot lighting out of his ass and his -em- 'gas' can raise the dead. The Liberals hate Bush because he has Character. He cares about advancing even the littel guy. That is a real threat to those who want to enslave the little guy with dependancy on government handouts. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-06 22:38 |
| #15 His memorial in the Kurdish city of Mosul is still carefully maintained nearly 70 years after....â SM, I think you nailed it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-06 22:23 |
| #14 We have a President with the guts to attempt to reform the butt-crack of the world and of course, the LLLs hate him. Either Islam reforms from within or the West will eventually be forced to do it from without, by means which make the Iraq war appear pale, see Wretchard's Three Conjectures. I hope that we knock over Ahmanijhad and the Mad Mullahs so W can notch another 60,000,000 liberated on his gun! In 20 years W will be lauded for his stunning accomplishment of knocking the Islamic world into sensibility. Clinton will be a sad side note, best known for the stained dress. And G*d help us if we elect the Hildebeast in '08. |
| Posted by: Slomogum Spavise8242 2005-12-06 21:48 |
| #13 Never in my life has the rhetoric been so vitriol towards an acting president. The left is in a tailspin, and they are taking everyone down with them that they can. Very true. For one thing, the liberals (communists) see the end of Roe vs Wade, a womans right to snuff. They hate Bush for it. They hate him because he believes in something besides himself, a higher calling, being, whatever. They simply cannot abide it. They are self-absorbed, Godless communists and proud of it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-12-06 20:37 |
| #12 Hah! Dubya is Washington, Lincoln, Albert Einstein and Julius Caesar all rolled into one! He has replaced Richard the Lionheart as standard Muslim bogeyman! He could whip Rommel's Afrika Korps singlehanded! Genghis Khan would fall on his knees and beg mercy at the very sight of him! He can eat a side of beef in one sitting and down two barrels of moonshine at lunch. He can take on 100 interns in a session! He craps like an elephant and pisses napalm! He can fly the Space Shuttle and the Airbus 380 blindfolded, at the same time! He can outride a Scythian warlord! He can build a B-2 out of an old trash can and a roll of duct tape in one afternoon! He can take on 100 left over interns in one session! There, an exercise in hyperbole deserves an equivalent response. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-12-06 20:33 |
| #11 Never in my life has the rhetoric been so vitriol towards an acting president. The left is in a tailspin, and they are taking everyone down with them that they can. G.W. seems to be pretty middle of the road to me. God help the arabs if I ever get elected. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-12-06 20:29 |
| #10 Well put. Back during the Civil War the Democrats constantly referred to Lincoln as a cretinous warmonger who looked like an ape. Sound familiar? The character of this president will be justified, not vilified, by historians long after Clintonâs legacy has gone the way of Hardingâs. A hundred years from now his encyclopedia entry will read something like âA controversial president, W. Bush was nevertheless respected by many for his international promotion of democracy and conservative personal qualities, which most Americans of the period found a welcome relief after the excesses of the wild 90's. His memorial in the Kurdish city of Mosul is still carefully maintained nearly 70 years after....â You get the picture. The leftists know this, too, which is why they hate him so much: just like they did Regan. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-12-06 19:47 |
| #9 Most history departments don't focus on 'old' style history and went left a long time ago. Well you aught to read what they wrote about Lincoln during the war. Now we have a quasi-temple in Washington, one of four at Rushmore, and on the fiver and penny. Would never have expected it had you asked in 1864. |
| Posted by: Snuting Thoting7559 2005-12-06 19:31 |
| #8 If I were looking for perspective, Wikipedia is the last place I'd go, as the quote amply demonstrates. |
| Posted by: Thrang Pheamble7791 2005-12-06 19:28 |
| #7 A bit of perspective, from Wikipedia: Reeves' opinions generally have a liberal bent--he opposed the war to topple Saddam Hussein as "stupid and unnecessary" (column, March 19, 2003)--but shuns "extreme" leftist positions. He pays close attention to happenings overseas and often fills his columns with explanations of current trends based on history. Many of his columns focus on the world's reaction to the United States' political actions. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-06 19:23 |
| #6 Rememer that the number who thought him sucessful were 154% of those who thought him the worst ever. (For every 100 who rated him worst, 154 picked succeding). And this tripe is considered NEWS? Merde. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-06 19:19 |
| #5 By this article Historians seem ill equiped to judge current events. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-06 18:18 |
| #4 JUST STFU!!!! |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-06 18:12 |
| #3 Richard Reeves??? I thought that old NY Times Socialist was long dead and buried. I demand a check for signs of voodoo. So what's with the Paris byline. Is he reduced to scribbling for L'Humanite? |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-06 18:09 |
| #2 Xbalanke: I suspect this guy would certainly have come to the same conclusion. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2005-12-06 17:42 |
| #1 I bet results would have been similar for Reagan during his tenure. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-12-06 17:29 |